kd7mxi
Member
walmart etc are now marketing motorola bubblepacks with repeater capability ..sticker on back of radios ,,, fcc id:k7gmrcee
-
To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:
Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.
If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.
To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.
The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.
For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).
This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.
FCC Rejects GMRS Petition
- Thread starter Dantian
- Start date
- Status
MDMassey
Member
I will admit to being new to the FRS/GMRS/HAM community, so please forgive my ignorance here. I can understand limiting GMRS equipment to the GMRS bands as licensee's with a call sign will not be able to use bands that you need to test to have access to. But why the limit on the HAMS that have tested and passed (technician covers these freqs I believe) the exam and their equipment that is capable of using these freqs? I have a basic entry level Baofeng radio that can recieve the FRS/GMRS channels as well as many others. I have FRS/GMRS "bubble pack" radios around my house for my kids to play with as well as for camping and what not. When the kids have the radios I lock in a FRS channel only and I monitor them as these are not "toy" radios and they can be heard by anyone near us tuned in. I monitor them with my Baofeng, I also talk to them with the Baofeng as well as I usually have that radio with me while I listen in on a local dispatch channel. I dont currently have a GMRS or HAM license, and I do not transmit on those freqs, I respect the law on that matter but I dont understand why my radio is not supposed to be used for GMRS if I was to hold the license.
It appears to me that the FCC has ignored the changes in climate and technology in the last 15 or so years. I doubt that the GMRS freqs would be overrun by HAM operators as the HAMs have litterally thousands of freqs to choose from compared to the hundred or so for GMRS. I dont think that the HAMs are the treat to this service and I believe that allowing the HAMs access to these channels with the proper license the service will only become stronger. Lowering the fees for GMRS would help too!!
Dom
It appears to me that the FCC has ignored the changes in climate and technology in the last 15 or so years. I doubt that the GMRS freqs would be overrun by HAM operators as the HAMs have litterally thousands of freqs to choose from compared to the hundred or so for GMRS. I dont think that the HAMs are the treat to this service and I believe that allowing the HAMs access to these channels with the proper license the service will only become stronger. Lowering the fees for GMRS would help too!!
Dom
mikepdx
Member
Design and build transmitters without certification for smack dab
in the middle of the Business Radio sub-band and
fairly close to the Public Safety sub-band.
A frightening prospect.
Business comms providers would have thrown a fit.
I would have tossed it on that alone.
Last edited:
N4KVE
Member
I can see the FCC not allowing ham radios on GMRS, but what I don't understand is not allowing commercial radios like Maxtrac's, Spectra's, MCS2000's, Jedi's, Astro Saber's, XTS 3000, & 5000's, & other commercial radios on GMRS.
MDMassey
Member
This is great!! I was actually writing up a similar proposal and was about to post it when I read this. The main difference to this and mine is; I was proposing a fee to be added to all the sales of "bubble pack" radios that covers the lisence fee (like $5-$10) and to have the mfg include a card with a serial number in the packaging that would allow you to either mail in the card or go online and use that serial number to acquire your license. This would to many things for the FCC. First off they would collect a fee for every radio sold even if the new owner does not apply. This would also cover licensed owners buying replacement or additional radios, who would not need a new license, the FCC would still get the fee. These fees would be added to the price and paid by the manufacturer to the FCC. I would gladly pay a few $$$ extra for the radio knowing that all I had to do to be legal was to fill out a card (like a warranty card) toss it in the mail and a couple weeks later get my call sign in the mail, or go online and do the same. These dont even have to be call signs but maybe a carry card that shows you have registered your equipment with the FCC and are allowed to use only the 22 channels available on the "bubble pack" type radios. You would also get the freedom to use the DCS codes as well. Also a 5 year term and a renewal cost similar to the original $5 or $10 that will limit your use to the 22 channels again.
With this the FCC will still gain a reasonable fee for the service (unlike the unreasonable $90). They would likely collect more in fees than the registered users (you will still get people who do not fill out the card), as they will get a fee per unit sold. The serious GMRS users will still purchase the more advanced and powerful equipment as they always have done, and for those users the proposals for a $25-$30 for 5 years is very reasonable. These fees would cover the full spectrum of GMRS including the "bubble pack" units as well.
I believe this will fee structure will allow the FCC to keep their revenues about the same as with the $90 fees as they are going to collect a higher volume of lower fees, and if the website is created correctly to register the bubble pack radios, you will have the option to pay a little extra (discount the fee from purchase) and get the full license with the call sign. This will bring awareness and additional revenue to the FCC.
Dom
The current way you are using your Baefeng on FRS is illegal in both cert type and in transmission. To get at least your transmission legal you need to install a attenuator on it to get the power output down to half a watt on FRS channels.
The only license-free transmission legal (but cert type illegal) communications a BaoFeng can do out of the box is MURS in low power mode and then also Marine.
Last edited:
The difference between your and my ideas are that mine pretty much turn what is already out there into license free which with the free for all it already is (it's as bad as CB in some places) is the logical thing to do. People just arn't going to stop using something they already bought and paid for just because some law changed. In today's economy I do not foresee the FCC ever enforcing current bubblepack rules.
And until Part 90 can be used for GMRS I would personally never consider buying a GMRS license because if I did I would want to be able to use full wattage via a mobile in vehicle unit and part 90 commercial radios are cheaper and more readily available than GMRS only mobile/base radios.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
It's not that hard to find Part 95 certified UHF radios. Many of the older Icom UHF mobiles are. I had Icom F-2020, F-320, F-320s and F-221's legally on GMRS running 35 watts or more. Some Kenwood mobile are legal and older Motorola's are too. It's not difficult to research this and find what you need.
It's pretty easy to find older Icom F-320's for $100 or less.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Not to mention the whole non-removeable antenna part….
MURS would not be legal since the power output can be increased beyond 2 watts. This is one of the limitations listed in the Part 95 rules that apply to MURS.
As for Marine VHF, they would need Part 80 certification. Do the Baeofeng's have that?
I said MURS in LOW POWER MODE <--You need to read.
We already know this about marine? Baofeng has the ability to make marine band transmissions that comply with the transmission specifications/characteristics of the band. As I already said, it would be cert type illegal but transmission specifications/characteristics legal. Again need to read.
I guess my separation of cert type illegal and transmission specifications/characteristics illegal just flew totally over your head.
I listed what would be transmission specifications/characteristics legal but still cert type illegal.
Please take a reading comprehension class. Thank you.
MDMassey
Member
My antennas are removable. I have the UV-5R model. I guess I need to monitor and talk to my kids on my FRS radio then, I forgot about the power issue, as my Baofeng will not do .5W with out an attenuator. I dont transmit on any HAM freq yet, I'm not able to take my test until the 14th of next month.
Dom
Dom
Here is a basic rechargeable FRS, anything more expensive is a waste without a GMRS license to use the higher wattage.
Uniden GMR1636-2C Marine 2-Way Radio - Walmart.com
Just don't use channels 15-22.
UV-5R eh? You're already behind the times, lol. It's already time to upgrade to a UV-82!
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F33W0FM/
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Thanks for your concern about my reading and comprehension, but they are just fine.
What I'm pointing out is that while it is possible to make a radio meet the technical requirements, it isn't enough. FCC type acceptance is there for a reason. Turning a MURS radio down to 2 watts might "technically" meet the sprit of the law, but it doesn't meet the word of the law. Specifically:
§ 95.649Power capability.
No CB, R/C, LPRS, FRS, MedRadio, MURS, or WMTS unit shall incorporate provisions for increasing its transmitter power to any level in excess of the limits specified in § 95.639.
For reference, here is the part of 95.639 relating to MURS:
(h) No MURS unit, under any condition of modulation, shall exceed 2 Watts transmitter power output.
Since these radios can be set to transmit with more than 2 watts, that makes them invalid for use on MURS.
The radio either meets the rules or it doesn't. It's not a pick and choose thing
Also:
95.655
(d) No transmitter will be certificated for use in MURS if it is equipped with a frequency capability not listed in § 95.632.
Since these radios are "equipped with frequency capability" other than just he MURS frequencies, they don't meet the MURS requirements.
Again, I hear what you are saying, but meeting the technical specifications might make some people feel justified in ignoring the FCC rules, but the word of the law says that the radio must be specifically type accepted for the radio service it is operating under. This includes marine VHF, which must meet Part 80, and the radios must be specifically type accepted here. There are plenty of radios that have both part 90 and part 80 certification. Some other radio services have requirements that cannot be met simply by setting up a radio to meet the emission and power requirements. A fair amount of people never read these rules, and there are some who only read part of them. Reading them all is important and I'm simply pointing that out for the benefit of others. No reason to take this so personally.
See above. No need to get wound up over this. We are having a discussion, and I'm just pointing out what the FCC requirements are. There isn't any need to take any of this as a personal attack. Being able to discuss this sort of stuff calmly, professionally and politely is a useful skill to have. I know it's something I use every day at work. No reason why we can't do it here, too.
Last edited:
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Right, that is an issue if you are looking at the FRS rules. Any radio that is used for FRS cannot have a removable antenna. FCC did this specifically to prevent users from adding high gain antennas, external antennas, etc. FRS is specifically intended to be a "short range" radio service. The 500mw limit and the inefficient antennas are intended to limit range.
Good luck on your amateur radio test!
MDMassey
Member
I got this one cheap and I just purchased a BF-F8+ which should be here tomorrow. I went with the F8 since it will share the same battery as the 5R and has the same features as the UV-82 for less $$. After I get my license I plan on saving for a Yaesu VX-8GR. That is the plan anyway. I have my eye on a Kenwood tranciever one of my friends is thinking about selling as well. Unfortunatly where I live I cant put up an antenna... stupid HOA stuff.
Dom
You are still totally missing my point.
Let me try to put it in a more simple way.
I am trying to tell those who are going to choose to break the law no matter what we say to please only break cert type and not the transmission specifications/characteristics of the band. Not only for their own pocket book (fines) but as to also not cause interference with the fully legal users of the bands.
I've thought of a great analogy.
Lots of people choose to break the law and not wear their seat belt. My advice to them, do so only in vehicles that are hard to see into like big trucks and vehicles with dark window tint so that it would be hard for law enforcement to see you breaking the law. Same goes for radio, if you're going to choose to break it, by only breaking cert type and keeping the transmission specifications/characteristics in check you make it very hard for the FCC to "see" you breaking the law.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
I hear you, and I get your point. Reread my post above, I edited it to throttle back the tone.
I don't agree with your analogy, though. My personal opinion only.
I don't agree with your analogy, though. My personal opinion only.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
For a hobbyist it's one thing, but for those of us who do this stuff professionally, it's a different matter. I might be able to fool the FCC and get away with it, but getting caught once would likely end my career and get my employer fined, a lot. Neither one of those is a risk I'm willing to take.
As a hobbyist, many here may be willing to do that. I, however, am not. Integrity is something I take seriously. That integrity applies in large things as well as small things.
Each of us can make our own decisions here. If you look at the FCC ruling that kicked all this off, though, they've made it clear that it isn't OK to ignore the letter of the law even though some may think they can.
As a hobbyist, many here may be willing to do that. I, however, am not. Integrity is something I take seriously. That integrity applies in large things as well as small things.
Each of us can make our own decisions here. If you look at the FCC ruling that kicked all this off, though, they've made it clear that it isn't OK to ignore the letter of the law even though some may think they can.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
I've specifically worked with a few departments at work that were using GMRS radios in a way that was not legal. I've also had a department that was using hacked amateur radios on MURS frequencies, just like the discussion that kicked off this whole thread. Their attitude was that they wouldn't get caught, and that it saved them a lot of money. While it may have saved this specific department a lot of money, it exposed our employer to some very large fines. Again, not a hobbyist thing here, but a professional thing.
Two ways to have a antenna in a HOA, one easy and no arguments, second one is in a grey area.
1. Got a big attic? Rig something up in there. Have a chimney? There is a round duct going though the center of the square/rectangular chimney you see. That's all free space. If you don't, I would go so far as to install a fake chimney on my roof and it can be filled with antenna's inside. Of course we're talking about vertically polarized VHF/UHF/Microwave here.
2. Use OTARD against the HOA, yes OTARD does not apply to HAM, CB, etc but if one were to use a type of antenna that "looks" like a TV antenna and tell them it's a TV antenna....you get my drift? lol
Here is a simple antenna for using your Baofeng in a vehicle (can be used for home too).
Amazon.com: Tram 1185 Amateur Dual-Band Magnet Antenna: GPS & Navigation
You'll need this adapter to connect it: Amazon.com: SMA Female to UHF Female RF Adapter: Electronics
If really desperate, mount you a 4" x 4" metal plate on the highest ceiling point inside your home and paint it to match then simply stick that antenna up there upside-down when you want to use the radio. Better than the factory antenna.
If your attic has 8feet of vertical available I'd go with a Tram 1480 Amazon.com: TRAM 1480 Amateur Dual-Band Base Antenna: GPS & Navigation
If it's shorter and has at least 5 feet available I would go with this J-Pole by Arrow Antenna: ARROW ANTENNA OSJ-146/440 | ARROW 2M/440 J ANTENNA
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
